Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: kcballer on July 21, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
-
It's an interesting topic considering the international HIV/AIDS conference is going on right now in Vienna. Studies have proven again and again that access to clean needles and safe injection sites not only reduces HIV, and subsequently AIDS, but in doing so reduces overall health costs from overdoses, infections, anti-retrovirals, it helps addicts get clean when they decide they want to get clean and it helps those who are not addicts get clean needles so they don't share with others.
What is the getbig consensus on this? Saving money and lives is a good thing? Or drugs are bad and those who do them should suffer?
-
-
Yes and the government should subsidise steroids for athletes as well.Also,maybe we should give out free lube and condoms so there is less bleeding and chance for the spread of AIDS.
-
Yes and the government should subsidise steroids for athletes as well.Also,maybe we should give out free lube and condoms so there is less bleeding and chance for the spread of AIDS.
Great points Billy! We should give out those things, unfortunately we spend millions of dollars on HIV and stipulate it must go to 'abstinence' programs ::) yeah like that works in humans.
Harm reduction should include the use of steroids.
-
NO-
Message is NWO approved
-
I have an addiction to chics with bootys and big tits, should the govt supply them to me?
-
Yes.
-
No.
-
I have an addiction to chics with bootys and big tits, should the govt supply them to me?
Move to Brazil.
-
No.
What do you pose as an alternative beach? The cost of antiretrovirals over a lifetime is 1000's of times more than a clean needle.
-
Clean needles are cheaper than treating new cases.
-
What do you pose as an alternative beach? The cost of antiretrovirals over a lifetime is 1000's of times more than a clean needle.
Quarantine on an island until a vacinne is found.
-
What do you pose as an alternative beach? The cost of antiretrovirals over a lifetime is 1000's of times more than a clean needle.
Stop doing drugs. I don't believe in subsidizing bad behavior. I might support some form of subsidized rehab, but I'm not favor of using tax dollars to promote drug use.
-
Clean needles are cheaper than treating new cases.
BINGO
-
Stop doing drugs. I don't believe in subsidizing bad behavior. I might support some form of subsidized rehab, but I'm not favor of using tax dollars to promote drug use.
And we end up on the hook for millions in anti-retrovirals. So fiscally you'd rather spend millions on people with HIV than many times less in preventing it.
-
Quarantine on an island until a vacinne is found.
You can't be serious please get your head out your ass
-
Quarantine on an island until a vacinne is found.
Quarantining researchers would be easier. Without them AIDS would have run its course and killed the susceptible population instead of transitioning into a chronic, expensive disease.
Beach..... Subsidizing behavior, LOL! That's like saying diabetics shouldn't get clean needles because they are fat from overeating. I guess you'd rather have the moral victory associated with new infections than save taxpayers millions of dollars.
-
Move to Brazil.
Ha,ha,ha,the problem with that is you may end up with an extra surprise down there.
-
And we end up on the hook for millions in anti-retrovirals. So fiscally you'd rather spend millions on people with HIV than many times less in preventing it.
I'd rather not spend millions on people with HIV or any other disease. Overall, I'd rather people stop doing harmful things, we focus on prevention, promote healthy families, and parents do a better job of raising kids.
-
I'd rather not spend millions on people with HIV or any other disease. Overall, I'd rather people stop doing harmful things, we focus on prevention, promote healthy families, and parents do a better job of raising kids.
So you'd rather the reduction in harmful things? Isn't that what clean needles does? It reduces the harm one can cause to themselves or others. Pretty straight forward and pretty responsible.
-
Ha,ha,ha,the problem with that is you may end up with an extra surprise down there.
Then he can move to the quarantine island. You only catch it once right?
-
I'd rather not spend millions on people with HIV or any other disease. Overall, I'd rather people stop doing harmful things, we focus on prevention, promote healthy families, and parents do a better job of raising kids.
HIV is mosty a gay mans' disase and drug abuser situation.
If these homos stopped banging each other like rabbits this situation would not be as bad as it developed, especially men going on the down low as well.
-
So you'd rather the reduction in harmful things? Isn't that what clean needles does? It reduces the harm one can cause to themselves or others. Pretty straight forward and pretty responsible.
The government shouldn't be giving a drug addict needles so the addict can continue to break the law and destroy his/her body. That increases harm to society. It's pretty irresponsible IMO. It's almost like giving a loaded gun to a kid and expecting the kid to act responsibly.
-
People have been warned for decades not to have reckless gay sex or share needles. sure there are a few cases on the marign like where a womans' man on the down low transmits aids tot he partner, but most cases are gays refusing to engage in safe sex or people sharing needles.
I feel bad for the cases of unknowing victims liek blood transfusions etc, but not the majority who have been wanred many times over not to engage in animalistic behavior.
-
People have been warned for decades not to have reckless gay sex or share needles. sure there are a few cases on the marign like where a womans' man on the down low transmits aids tot he partner, but most cases are gays refusing to engage in safe sex or people sharing needles.
I feel bad for the cases of unknowing victims liek blood transfusions etc, but not the majority who have been wanred many times over not to engage in animalistic behavior.
Fat people know eating too much causes health problems. What about them?
-
LOL you know just killing all those who are addicts and with aids would be even cheaper...why not that kc/kaje?
how about criminals why even have a life sentence? that would save tons of money?
the govt should not be a willing accomplice in breaking the law...how about we just stop treating these ppl with addictions and aids that would also save us alot of money?
-
LOL you know just killing all those who are addicts and with aids would be even cheaper...why not that kc/kaje?
how about criminals why even have a life sentence? that would save tons of money?
the govt should not be a willing accomplice in breaking the law...how about we just stop treating these ppl with addictions and aids that would also save us alot of money?
It would be a lot easier/cheaper tracking down researchers.
-
It would be a lot easier/cheaper tracking down researchers.
to what end? that wont stop the transmition of aids or our spending on it...
why dont we just stop treating these ppl?
hey doc is it normal for your sternum to pop? sorry to get off topic, mine pops from time to time and everyonce in a while it gets real tight until it either pops or just kinda goes away?
-
Fat people know eating too much causes health problems. What about them?
Screw em, let em die young and we save the SS money.
Actions/Inactions have consequences.
-
LOL you know just killing all those who are addicts and with aids would be even cheaper...why not that kc/kaje?
how about criminals why even have a life sentence? that would save tons of money?
the govt should not be a willing accomplice in breaking the law...how about we just stop treating these ppl with addictions and aids that would also save us alot of money?
Agree.
-
Drugs are bad, mmmmkay......
-
Drugs are bad, mmmmkay......
;D ;D ;D
-
Screw em, let em die young and we save the SS money.
Actions/Inactions have consequences.
Insulin and other meds keep them alive forever.
-
;D ;D ;D
lol. And don't have sex with underaged prostitutes.
-
Insulin and other meds keep them alive forever.
Thats' fine, but make them pay for it.
-
The government shouldn't be giving a drug addict needles so the addict can continue to break the law and destroy his/her body.
I know what you're saying, Beach, but they're gonna shoot up whether we supply clean needles or no needles at all.
Providing sanitary drug accessories may help contain the spread of diseases.
It's not as if they'd be supplying the drugs.
-
I know what you're saying, Beach, but they're gonna shoot up whether we supply clean needles or no needles at all.
Providing sanitary drug accessories may help contain the spread of diseases.
It's not as if they'd be supplying the drugs.
I hear you. I can see a benefit to giving them clean needles. I just think the bad outweighs the good.
-
I hear you. I can see a benefit to giving them clean needles. I just think the bad outweighs the good.
So the bad in your scenario outweighs an HIV epidemic fueling higher costs as tax payers foot the bill for anti retrovirals for hundreds of thousands of new infections? Even Iran of all places sees the light on this and they don't exactly have a junkie culture do they?
We spend billions on AIDS and HIV annually yet we can't even set up safe injection sites to stop a continuing epidemic in our own country? Come on now it's proven to be the cheapest and easiest way to contain the spread of HIV. Lets not even mention that the addicts who decide to get clean through a clean needle exchange center, they have staff on hand to direct them, stay clean longer than those forced into it. So right away you're not 'condoning' anything. You are treating a disease with medical supervision just as you would diabetes or cancer.
-
So the bad in your scenario outweighs an HIV epidemic fueling higher costs as tax payers foot the bill for anti retrovirals for hundreds of thousands of new infections? Even Iran of all places sees the light on this and they don't exactly have a junkie culture do they?
We spend billions on AIDS and HIV annually yet we can't even set up safe injection sites to stop a continuing epidemic in our own country? Come on now it's proven to be the cheapest and easiest way to contain the spread of HIV. Lets not even mention that the addicts who decide to get clean through a clean needle exchange center, they have staff on hand to direct them, stay clean longer than those forced into it. So right away you're not 'condoning' anything. You are treating a disease with medical supervision just as you would diabetes or cancer.
The religious POV isn't based upon a faith their way is right, not logic. If needles, condoms and sex education, gay marriage worked people might start thinking they were wrong about other things.
If only having one option most would choose feeling right over actually being correct.
-
So the bad in your scenario outweighs an HIV epidemic fueling higher costs as tax payers foot the bill for anti retrovirals for hundreds of thousands of new infections? Even Iran of all places sees the light on this and they don't exactly have a junkie culture do they?
We spend billions on AIDS and HIV annually yet we can't even set up safe injection sites to stop a continuing epidemic in our own country? Come on now it's proven to be the cheapest and easiest way to contain the spread of HIV. Lets not even mention that the addicts who decide to get clean through a clean needle exchange center, they have staff on hand to direct them, stay clean longer than those forced into it. So right away you're not 'condoning' anything. You are treating a disease with medical supervision just as you would diabetes or cancer.
What HIV epidemic are you talking about?
I think HIV primarily affects a very small percentage of the American population. My take on the disease changed after reading a book by Tony Brown that talked about how the disease was transmitted. I created a thread (or posted in a different thread) a while back about this. According to the people he interviewed who have studied the disease, it is primarily transmitted in one of two ways: intravenous drug use and a third world health condition. I pretty much agree with his conclusion. I can bump the thread if you're interested.
The easiest and cheapest way for an IV drug user to stop spreading diseases is to stop using drugs.
I don't agree with your comparison to cancer, etc. We don't give cigarettes to cancer patients. We don't prescribe candy to a diabetic. We get them away from the things that caused/exacerbate their diseases.
-
The religious POV isn't based upon a faith their way is right, not logic. If needles, condoms and sex education, gay marriage worked people might start thinking they were wrong about other things.
If only having one option most would choose feeling right over actually being correct.
::)
-
I don't agree with your comparison to cancer, etc. We don't give cigarettes to cancer patients. We don't prescribe candy to a diabetic. We get them away from the things that caused/exacerbate their diseases.
And we're not giving drugs to drug users. Just a clean tool. If diabetics were forced to reuse needles, I suppose I would support helping them too.
These programs tend to be cheap and effective from the studies, but I think we have to have a multi-pronged attack with working to get them off the drugs as you advocate.
-
I’m not concerned with helping people come off drugs that they choose to take.
Let them.
It’s their choice, and the world is overpopulated, anyway.
My concern is containment of disease that can spread to and effect innocent people.
-
And we're not giving drugs to drug users. Just a clean tool. If diabetics were forced to reuse needles, I suppose I would support helping them too.
These programs tend to be cheap and effective from the studies, but I think we have to have a multi-pronged attack with working to get them off the drugs as you advocate.
I really don't see a major distinction between giving an addict a drug vs. giving him the needle to use the drug.
I don't think a diabetic is analgous to a drug addict. An addict can (and should) quit using. A diabetic is taking medicine to stay alive, not an illegal substance that will harm him.
I understand the rationale behind giving addicts needles. It's just something I'm not comfortable with.
-
I really don't see a major distinction between giving an addict a drug vs. giving him the needle to use the drugs.
I don't think a diabetic is analgous to a drug addict. An addict can (and should) quit using. A diabetic is taking medicine to stay alive, not an illegal substance that will harm him.
I understand the rationale behind giving addicts needles. It's just something I'm not comfortable with.
Many obese people are food addicts. Diabetes is just one of the diseases they end up with.
I'd prefer people not inject crap as well but at least safely done it may save the country money and some lives.
-
I really don't see a major distinction between giving an addict a drug vs. giving him the needle to use the drug.
You have every right to be concerned, but people don't get addicted to needles.
-
It's an interesting topic considering the international HIV/AIDS conference is going on right now in Vienna. Studies have proven again and again that access to clean needles and safe injection sites not only reduces HIV, and subsequently AIDS, but in doing so reduces overall health costs from overdoses, infections, anti-retrovirals, it helps addicts get clean when they decide they want to get clean and it helps those who are not addicts get clean needles so they don't share with others.
What is the getbig consensus on this? Saving money and lives is a good thing? Or drugs are bad and those who do them should suffer?
No,
I know it sounds horrible, but I'm not losing sleep over these people being infected.
:-\
-
No reason not to have a syringe exchange in inner city neighborhoods or other areas where drug use is rampant.
-
I’m not concerned with helping people come off drugs that they choose to take.
Let them.
It’s their choice, and the world is overpopulated, anyway.
My concern is containment of disease that can spread to and effect innocent people.
How big of a problem is this? Specifically, how rampant is the spread of HIV from an IV drug user to an "innocent" person?
-
It's actually senseless not to give these worthless fucks clean needles if we're going to be forced to provide them medical care anyway...
:-\
-
How big of a problem is this? Specifically, how rampant is the spread of HIV from an IV drug user to an "innocent" person?
Sexual intercourse with an infected person.
Contaminated tattooing/piercing instruments.
Exposure to infected blood, transfusions of infected blood, blood products, or organ transplantation.
Although rare, HIV can be passed from a pregnant woman to her baby during pregnancy, labor, and delivery. It’s only slightly easier for mothers to transmit HIV to their babies through breast-feeding.
Some healthcare workers have become infected after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or, less frequently, when infected blood comes in contact with a worker's open cut or is splashed into a worker's eyes or inside their nose.
The last three occurrences are quite rare - some less than 1%.
Is it enough to merit the practice in question?
That’s each person’s opinion.
My take:
People will use drugs no matter what.
Legalities don’t stop them, and supplying needles won’t have any kind of effect on drug use either way.
It’s about as effective as imposing restrictions on the sale of cigarette lighters to stop people from smoking.
You can't prevent the inevitable.
But, providing clean needles may certainly reduce the temptation of users to reuse/share infected needles.
If something as simple and cost effective as supplying sterilized needles can reduce the percentage of infected population, I’m all for it - because it may spare me should I one day encounter that one person who can infect me.
-
Sexual intercourse with an infected person.
Contaminated tattooing/piercing instruments.
Exposure to infected blood, transfusions of infected blood, blood products, or organ transplantation.
Although rare, HIV can be passed from a pregnant woman to her baby during pregnancy, labor, and delivery. It’s only slightly easier for mothers to transmit HIV to their babies through breast-feeding.
Some healthcare workers have become infected after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or, less frequently, when infected blood comes in contact with a worker's open cut or is splashed into a worker's eyes or inside their nose.
The last three occurrences are quite rare - some less than 1%.
Is it enough to merit the practice in question?
That’s each person’s opinion.
My take:
People will use drugs no matter what.
Legalities don’t stop them, and supplying needles won’t have any kind of effect on drug use either way.
It’s about as effective as imposing restrictions on the sale of cigarette lighters to stop people from smoking.
You can't prevent the inevitable.
But, providing clean needles may certainly reduce the temptation of users to reuse/share infected needles.
If something as simple and cost effective as supplying sterilized needles can reduce the percentage of infected population, I’m all for it - because it may spare me should I one day encounter that one person who can infect me.
Montague I doubt you're at risk. Check out the following excerpts from a book I read a few years ago. It was published in 1995, so it's a little dated, but Brown posits that in the U.S. HIV is primarily spread through IV drug use and those who come into contact with people involved with IV drug users. Here are some excerpts from "Black Lies, White Lies" (kinda long):
"It has become abundantly clear, in spite of a great campaign of disinformation and reprehensible scare tactics, that 'AIDS' does not attack the general population. After fifteen years, it remains almost exclusively confined to IV-drug users (about 32 percent of the cases) and a subset of male homosexuals which accounted for about 60 percent of the total 140, 428 AIDS cases in the United States in 1991. The total number of homosexuals who have had 'AIDS' since it was discovered in 1981 was 217,012 as of December 1993."
"About 95 percent of those contract 'AIDS' have a history of drug use--according to Dr. Robert E. Willner in his book Deadly Deception. Willner quotes studies that claim it takes from '500 to 1,000 unprotected sexual encounters to transmit' HIV . . . ."
"The odds of a healthy non-drug-using heterosexual getting 'AIDS' are the same as for getting hit by lightening. And from a population of 255 million Americans, only 140, 428 were living with 'AIDS' as of 1994.
John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson, in their book Death Rush, accuse the CDC of fraud: 'The effect of the CDC's statistical trickery is to underreport IV-drug users as an AIDS group by at least 50 percent; the effect is to construe AIDS as a venereal disease, rather than a drug-induced condition."
One of the world's leading authorities on viruses and retroviruses, Dr. Peter Duesberg, "blames the rise of 'AIDS on the 'massive escalation in the consumption of recreational drugs' in the 1960s and 1970s. In a ten-year period alone, Americans increased their use of cocaine by 200 percent, while the use of amphetamines and poppers skyrocketed among homosexuals. Drug abuse, Duesberg says, resulted in the reemergence of old diseases such as tuberculosis--one of the 'AIDS' diseases--in the 1980s and 1990s."
"Duesberg's theory of how 'AIDS' spreads is simple to follow. He holds that 'AIDS' begins in those who are biologically most susceptible: people whose lifestyles make them perfect hosts for a 'benign' retrovirus (HIV). He says it that HIV hardly ever becomes active even in 'AIDS.' These 'thirdworldized' hosts, all of whom have ravaged their body in some way, include heterosexual drug addicts; and those drug-abusing homosexuals whose irresponsible 'bathhouse' sex behavior exposes them to lethal microbes and the spread of infections."
. . .
More:
"Michael Callen, one of the founders of the People with AIDS Coalition, lived twelve years with 'AIDS.' Just before his death, he offered a compelling confession in HEAL, a publication for alternative health therapies, that lends credence to Duesberg's 'DAIDS' theory [Drug Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome]:
By the age of 27, I estimate I had 3,000 different sex partners. I'd also had: hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B; herpes simplex types 1 and 2; shigella; entamoeba histolytica; Giardia; syphilis; gonorrhea; nonspecific urethritis; chlamydia; venereal warts; CMV; EBV reactivations; and finally cryptosporidiosis and AIDS. The question for me wasn't why I was sick with AIDS but rather how I had been able to remain standing on two feet for so long. If you blanked out my name and handed my medical chart, prior to AIDS, to a doctor, she/he might reasonable have guessed that it was the chart of a 65-year-old equatorial African living in squalor.
"Callen very likely put his finger on what is the probable link between the 'AIDS' outbreak among high-risk groups in the West and the malnourished heterosexual population in Africa: a Third World health status. This sort of ravaged immune system first developed in the West among a bathhouse culture of male bisexuals and homosexuals, as well as heterosexual injection-drug users and homosexual long-term recreational drug abusers. These subcultures were extremely vulnerable because of debilitated bodies and a Third World hygiene status."
"`Something other than homosexuality' causes 'AIDS,' says Duesberg. 'Your all-American homosexual neighbor will never get 'AIDS.' It's only the ones who have hundreds, or thousands, of sexual contacts a year. And how is that achieved? Almost exclusively by chemicals.
"Drug abuse is rampant among homosexuals who practice promiscuous sex. For multiple orgasms and as an anal relaxant, this bathhouse subculture routinely uses 'poppers' (amyl nitrite inhalants), and their 'recreational' regime consists of PCP, amphetamines, angel dust, cocaine, heroin, uppers and downers, Valium, and alcohol,' Duesberg explains."
"In my opinion, then, the illness we call 'AIDS' in the United States is not by any means a 'homosexual disease.' I believe it is precipitated by a chemical injury, but it is also triggered by a variety of microorganisms as cofactors that destroys the body's immune system. The process is a deadly synergistic combustion. High-risk 'AIDS' behavior in the West is primarily drug abuse, receptive anal intercourse, poor hygiene, malnutrition, and unprotected sex--especially if there is a history of sexually transmitted diseases."
-
Montague I doubt you're at risk.
Everyone is, technically, at risk.
I agree it's probably a small one.
I hope my chances are as miniscule as your information suggests.
;)
-
At some point Aids will be prevented with gene therapy but that's not the point.
Why push Gardisil on young girls when condoms are safer than the vaccine, from a purely health perspective?
-
Everyone is, technically, at risk.
I agree it's probably a small one.
I hope my chances are as miniscule as your information suggests.
;)
True, risk is rarely zero, but anytime you get into the "more likely to be struck by lightening" category, you're probably o.k. :)
-
it seems like the biggest argument for this is saving money, why not simply stop giving these ppl assistance? that would accomplish the same thing actually it would save you more as giving needles wont eliminate the problem...
and doc nobody has brought up religion so its ignorant for you to ASSume that ppl are against this b/c of religion...like the ppl who cant fathom a person being against abortion for reasons outside of religion ::)
-
it seems like the biggest argument for this is saving money, why not simply stop giving these ppl assistance? that would accomplish the same thing actually it would save you more as giving needles wont eliminate the problem...
and doc nobody has brought up religion so its ignorant for you to ASSume that ppl are against this b/c of religion...like the ppl who cant fathom a person being against abortion for reasons outside of religion ::)
You can't say "All life is precious" in one breath then "Let's do nothing to stop the spread of disease" in the next and expect to be taken seriously. :)
-
You can't say "All life is precious" in one breath then "Let's do nothing to stop the spread of disease" in the next and expect to be taken seriously. :)
LOL way to misunderstand the reasonings behind the arguments... ;)
there is a thing though called PERSONAL RESPONSIFREAKINGBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the child has done nothing and should not be punished for others idiocy...
the drug addict with aids has done something to put themselves in that predicament and should face the consequences....
-
LOL way to misunderstand the reasonings behind the arguments... ;)
there is a thing though called PERSONAL RESPONSIFREAKINGBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the child has done nothing and should not be punished for others idiocy...
the drug addict with aids has done something to put themselves in that predicament and should face the consequences....
"Personal responsibility" is a cop out used by conservatives because "I'm not willing to support activities inconsistent with my values" would be political suicide. It's equivalent to liberal mantra "What about the children?!" when they want more money.
Fatasses, alcoholics, smokers, older new parents, druggies, steroid users, people who won't take their meds, etc.. ultimately pass financial consequences for their actions/inactions off to other taxpayers/policyholders. I don't see any republicans yelling "You're diabetic with high blood pressure from eating too much. Pay your own healthcare costs or die from kidney failure!". :)
Saying "personal responsibility" and "what about the children?" make people feel justified but we all know deep down inside it's bullchit 99.999% of the time. :)
Before someone who can't get the bigger concept asks... No, I'm not anti-personal responsibility, LOL! I'm against using buzzwords, in a hypocritical manner, to abort honest dialogue and our rights/wrongs being defined by whatever way the political pendulum swings.
-
"Personal responsibility" is a cop out used by conservatives because "I'm not willing to support activities inconsistent with my values" would be political suicide. It's equivalent to liberal mantra "What about the children?!" when they want more money.
Fatasses, alcoholics, smokers, older new parents, druggies, steroid users, people who won't take their meds, etc.. ultimately pass financial consequences for their actions/inactions off to other taxpayers/policyholders. I don't see any republicans yelling "You're diabetic with high blood pressure from eating too much. Pay your own healthcare costs or die from kidney failure!". :)
Saying "personal responsibility" and "what about the children?" make people feel justified but we all know deep down inside it's bullchit 99.999% of the time. :)
Before someone who can't get the bigger concept asks... No, I'm not anti-personal responsibility, LOL! I'm against using buzzwords, in a hypocritical manner, to abort honest dialogue and our rights/wrongs being defined by whatever way the political pendulum swings.
first of all LOL if you dont see the difference between the legal actions such as over eating and drinking and the ILLEGAL actions of shooting drugs...
second of all I those ppl should take personal responsibility for their actions too, you ASSume to much doc personal responsibility should be taken across the board...
-
first of all LOL if you dont see the difference between the legal actions such as over eating and drinking and the ILLEGAL actions of shooting drugs...
second of all I those ppl should take personal responsibility for their actions too, you ASSume to much doc personal responsibility should be taken across the board...
Legality is defined by politics.
-
Legality is defined by politics.
agreed dont forget though doc politics is not reality andthat doesnt change the fact that one is illegal and one isnt...and seeing as im consistant in my application of personal responsibility you ASSumed wrongly...
if however there is assistance to be given it should go to the ppl who didnt get in their situation by illegal actions...
-
"Personal responsibility" is a cop out used by conservatives because "I'm not willing to support activities inconsistent with my values" would be political suicide. It's equivalent to liberal mantra "What about the children?!" when they want more money.
Fatasses, alcoholics, smokers, older new parents, druggies, steroid users, people who won't take their meds, etc.. ultimately pass financial consequences for their actions/inactions off to other taxpayers/policyholders. I don't see any republicans yelling "You're diabetic with high blood pressure from eating too much. Pay your own healthcare costs or die from kidney failure!". :)
Saying "personal responsibility" and "what about the children?" make people feel justified but we all know deep down inside it's bullchit 99.999% of the time. :)
Before someone who can't get the bigger concept asks... No, I'm not anti-personal responsibility, LOL! I'm against using buzzwords, in a hypocritical manner, to abort honest dialogue and our rights/wrongs being defined by whatever way the political pendulum swings.
pwnage right there.
Save a baby, let it die when it's old enough to not feel bad for it ::)
-
Montague I doubt you're at risk. Check out the following excerpts from a book I read a few years ago. It was published in 1995, so it's a little dated, but Brown posits that in the U.S. HIV is primarily spread through IV drug use and those who come into contact with people involved with IV drug users. Here are some excerpts from "Black Lies, White Lies" (kinda long):
"It has become abundantly clear, in spite of a great campaign of disinformation and reprehensible scare tactics, that 'AIDS' does not attack the general population. After fifteen years, it remains almost exclusively confined to IV-drug users (about 32 percent of the cases) and a subset of male homosexuals which accounted for about 60 percent of the total 140, 428 AIDS cases in the United States in 1991. The total number of homosexuals who have had 'AIDS' since it was discovered in 1981 was 217,012 as of December 1993."
"About 95 percent of those contract 'AIDS' have a history of drug use--according to Dr. Robert E. Willner in his book Deadly Deception. Willner quotes studies that claim it takes from '500 to 1,000 unprotected sexual encounters to transmit' HIV . . . ."
"The odds of a healthy non-drug-using heterosexual getting 'AIDS' are the same as for getting hit by lightening. And from a population of 255 million Americans, only 140, 428 were living with 'AIDS' as of 1994.
John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson, in their book Death Rush, accuse the CDC of fraud: 'The effect of the CDC's statistical trickery is to underreport IV-drug users as an AIDS group by at least 50 percent; the effect is to construe AIDS as a venereal disease, rather than a drug-induced condition."
One of the world's leading authorities on viruses and retroviruses, Dr. Peter Duesberg, "blames the rise of 'AIDS on the 'massive escalation in the consumption of recreational drugs' in the 1960s and 1970s. In a ten-year period alone, Americans increased their use of cocaine by 200 percent, while the use of amphetamines and poppers skyrocketed among homosexuals. Drug abuse, Duesberg says, resulted in the reemergence of old diseases such as tuberculosis--one of the 'AIDS' diseases--in the 1980s and 1990s."
"Duesberg's theory of how 'AIDS' spreads is simple to follow. He holds that 'AIDS' begins in those who are biologically most susceptible: people whose lifestyles make them perfect hosts for a 'benign' retrovirus (HIV). He says it that HIV hardly ever becomes active even in 'AIDS.' These 'thirdworldized' hosts, all of whom have ravaged their body in some way, include heterosexual drug addicts; and those drug-abusing homosexuals whose irresponsible 'bathhouse' sex behavior exposes them to lethal microbes and the spread of infections."
. . .
More:
"Michael Callen, one of the founders of the People with AIDS Coalition, lived twelve years with 'AIDS.' Just before his death, he offered a compelling confession in HEAL, a publication for alternative health therapies, that lends credence to Duesberg's 'DAIDS' theory [Drug Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome]:
By the age of 27, I estimate I had 3,000 different sex partners. I'd also had: hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B; herpes simplex types 1 and 2; shigella; entamoeba histolytica; Giardia; syphilis; gonorrhea; nonspecific urethritis; chlamydia; venereal warts; CMV; EBV reactivations; and finally cryptosporidiosis and AIDS. The question for me wasn't why I was sick with AIDS but rather how I had been able to remain standing on two feet for so long. If you blanked out my name and handed my medical chart, prior to AIDS, to a doctor, she/he might reasonable have guessed that it was the chart of a 65-year-old equatorial African living in squalor.
"Callen very likely put his finger on what is the probable link between the 'AIDS' outbreak among high-risk groups in the West and the malnourished heterosexual population in Africa: a Third World health status. This sort of ravaged immune system first developed in the West among a bathhouse culture of male bisexuals and homosexuals, as well as heterosexual injection-drug users and homosexual long-term recreational drug abusers. These subcultures were extremely vulnerable because of debilitated bodies and a Third World hygiene status."
"`Something other than homosexuality' causes 'AIDS,' says Duesberg. 'Your all-American homosexual neighbor will never get 'AIDS.' It's only the ones who have hundreds, or thousands, of sexual contacts a year. And how is that achieved? Almost exclusively by chemicals.
"Drug abuse is rampant among homosexuals who practice promiscuous sex. For multiple orgasms and as an anal relaxant, this bathhouse subculture routinely uses 'poppers' (amyl nitrite inhalants), and their 'recreational' regime consists of PCP, amphetamines, angel dust, cocaine, heroin, uppers and downers, Valium, and alcohol,' Duesberg explains."
"In my opinion, then, the illness we call 'AIDS' in the United States is not by any means a 'homosexual disease.' I believe it is precipitated by a chemical injury, but it is also triggered by a variety of microorganisms as cofactors that destroys the body's immune system. The process is a deadly synergistic combustion. High-risk 'AIDS' behavior in the West is primarily drug abuse, receptive anal intercourse, poor hygiene, malnutrition, and unprotected sex--especially if there is a history of sexually transmitted diseases."
You are right in that AIDS and HIV are isolated to those whose actions put them most as risk. The mantra of 'everyone could be infected' is not true. If you wear protection and use lube, screen your sexual partners, don't share needles and make better decisions your risk will be close to nil.
However that doesn't mean you shouldn't help a minority of people who are at risk. It's not just those who sleep with men and drug injectors who are at risk, 32% of all new HIV infections come from heterosexual contact. Is this going to turn into an epidemic for all Americans? No. But it will continue to ravage through lower educated and ill informed persons who are most at risk.
We spend billions each year on HIV and AIDS. Billions. Millions of that goes to 'abstinence' which doesn't work, millions goes to poverty initiatives and a small % goes to prevention. Why? Because it's not as popular to prevent HIV as it is to give money to poor people with the disease. One is a charitable good will thing, the other is supposedly support for an illicit act. So if we give money to people once they have the virus why not give a larger % of money and take steps to prevent the virus, thus saving billions long term and saving millions of lives in the process?
-
first of all LOL if you dont see the difference between the legal actions such as over eating and drinking and the ILLEGAL actions of shooting drugs...
Agree. Not a good comparison.
-
Is this going to turn into an epidemic for all Americans? No. But it will continue to ravage through lower educated and ill informed persons who are most at risk.
So the bad in your scenario outweighs an HIV epidemic fueling higher costs as tax payers foot the bill for anti retrovirals for hundreds of thousands of new infections?
So which is it?
-
Agree. Not a good comparison.
Right and wrong are not determined by what is legal, for goodness' sake!
-
Right and wrong are not determined by what is legal, for goodness' sake!
That's an oversimplification. Of course right and wrong can be "determined by what is legal." The law tells us (society) that you have to wear a seat belt, drive a certain mph, pay your taxes, etc.
The law also says buying and using things like heroin is illegal. Smoking cigarettes and eating too much are not illegal. Your comparison makes no sense.
-
I think that needle exchanges should are a good thing but far-left tards like KC throwing the liberal spin with the claims that not having them will lead to an AIDS epidemic is idiotic.
Needle exchanges are simplistic, for the most part cheap and they help to keep these idiot junkies somewhat healthy and out of the ER.
-
So which is it?
Uh hundreds and thousands of new infections is still a fraction of the population but it's still hundreds and thousands. Unless you think the population of America is under 100 million.
-
I think that needle exchanges should are a good thing but far-left tards like KC throwing the liberal spin with the claims that not having them will lead to an AIDS epidemic is idiotic.
Needle exchanges are simplistic, for the most part cheap and they help to keep these idiot junkies somewhat healthy and out of the ER.
Uh it is an epidemic in the at risk communities. I've already said when taken as a % of the whole population it's not going to effect the general population to a large extent. But hey please take words i didn't say and make them up. Oh BF you seriously need a clue. ::) You're so clueless it's like you're 12 years old.
-
Uh it is an epidemic in the at risk communities. I've already said when taken as a % of the whole population it's not going to effect the general population to a large extent. But hey please take words i didn't say and make them up. Oh BF you seriously need a clue. ::) You're so clueless it's like you're 12 years old.
It's not an epidemic (it's a problem and the risk is there but hardly an epidemic) in at-risk communities and your fear-mongering isn't helping the argument in the least.
-
Uh it is an epidemic in the at risk communities. I've already said when taken as a % of the whole population it's not going to effect the general population to a large extent. But hey please take words i didn't say and make them up. Oh BF you seriously need a clue. ::) You're so clueless it's like you're 12 years old.
They would not be as "at risk" if they simply acted responsibibly and not banged each other like rabid dogs without condoms and shared needles like kids trade baseball cards.
-
Uh hundreds and thousands of new infections is still a fraction of the population but it's still hundreds and thousands. Unless you think the population of America is under 100 million.
Is it an epidemic or not?
-
That's an oversimplification. Of course right and wrong can be "determined by what is legal." The law tells us (society) that you have to wear a seat belt, drive a certain mph, pay your taxes, etc.
The law also says buying and using things like heroin is illegal. Smoking cigarettes and eating too much are not illegal. Your comparison makes no sense.
All are substances which can be abused by humans. Heroin's illegality doesn't change that simple fact or make abusing either more/less wrong.
So if heroin were legal you'd have no problems paying for needles?!
-
All are substances which can be abused by humans. Heroin's illegality doesn't change that simple fact or make abusing either more/less wrong.
So if heroin were legal you'd have no problems paying for needles?!
Yes, I would have a problem.
-
It's not an epidemic (it's a problem and the risk is there but hardly an epidemic) in at-risk communities and your fear-mongering isn't helping the argument in the least.
So it's not an epidemic in the gay and IV drug user communities? Weird. I could have sworn that when looking at those at risk there is a very high chance of getting HIV if you aren't taking precautions.
-
So it's not an epidemic in the gay and IV drug user communities? Weird. I could have sworn that when looking at those at risk there is a very high chance of getting HIV if you aren't taking precautions.
They are at risk via their own reckless behavior that they are repeatedly warned about.
-
So it's not an epidemic in the gay and IV drug user communities? Weird. I could have sworn that when looking at those at risk there is a very high chance of getting HIV if you aren't taking precautions.
So high-risk = epidemic now? My word, you are stupid. It's sad because you're just hampering the argument for clean needles (which I'm for) with your stupidity and fear-mongering.
-
Is it an epidemic or not?
Within the gay and IV drug user community it is an epidemic. That is who we are trying to help with clean needles. When taken as a whole HIV and AIDS is not going to infect many Americans. It's only going to infect those at risk and that is not most Americans.
-
Within the gay and IV drug user community it is an epidemic. That is who we are trying to help with clean needles. When taken as a whole HIV and AIDS is not going to infect many Americans. It's only going to infect those at risk and that is not most Americans.
Please, they have been warned for decades already. Lets thin the herd already and get over with it. I am not remotely sympathetic to people getting HIV via reckless behavior they are REPEATEDLY warned against.
-
So high-risk = epidemic now? My word, you are stupid. It's sad because you're just hampering the argument for clean needles (which I'm for) with your stupidity and fear-mongering.
No, epidemic is when a large % of a population (in this instance homosexuals and IV drug users) is at high risk and/or contributes a disproportionate amount of people with HIV. I'm not fear mongering in the slightest just telling it like it is. If you are gay (and don't use protection) and/or share needles you will likely be exposed to HIV. Therefore within those communities it is an epidemic. Within the African American community even more so. An epidemic is not just a population wide thing.
In no way is telling the truth hampering the cause for clean needles. But hey keep bashing it's all you have left...
-
Please, they have been warned for decades already. Lets thin the herd already and get over with it. I am not remotely sympathetic to people getting HIV via reckless behavior they are REPEATEDLY warned against.
The callousness of your statement makes you seem even less of a human than i originally thought.
-
The callousness of your statement makes you seem even less of a human than i originally thought.
As opposed to what? Keep enabling the problem and not calling out their reckless animalistic behavior for what it is?
Why not just give them a revolver to play russian roulette daily and see what happens?
-
As opposed to what? Keep enabling the problem and not calling out their reckless animalistic behavior for what it is?
Why not just give them a revolver to play russian roulette daily and see what happens?
These are human beings fool we are all flawed and all make mistakes, should we all die because we have fu*ked up?
-
These are human beings fool we are all flawed and all make mistakes, should we all die because we have fu*ked up?
Screwing up once, twice, three times, is one thing, but these people are largely recklessly ignoring precautions that are told to them for DECADES and still whining for more tax dollars.
No thanks. Actions have consequences.
-
We have no obligation--legal, moral, or otherwise--to give drug paraphernalia to drug addicts. It's not going to stop reckless behavior. It may protect some, but it will also facilitate drug abuse.
-
We have no obligation--legal, moral, or otherwise--to give drug paraphernalia to drug addicts. It's not going to stop reckless behavior. It may protect some, but it will also facilitate drug abuse.
Yes we are under no obligation to spend money already earmarked for HIV and AIDS on preventing it. Great use there beach! Your christian logic once again! Go death penalty, stop abortion! Don't use the millions we spend on HIV and AIDS to prevent it, instead just spend it!
-
Yes we are under no obligation to spend money already earmarked for HIV and AIDS on preventing it. Great use there beach! Your christian logic once again! Go death penalty, stop abortion! Don't use the millions we spend on HIV and AIDS to prevent it, instead just spend it!
lol. Who said anything about Christianity? ::) What on earth does the death penalty and abortion have to do with this subject? Or Christiantiy for that matter?
What this demonstrates is an inability to discuss the issue at hand.
-
lol. Who said anything about Christianity? ::) What on earth does the death penalty and abortion have to do with this subject? Or Christiantiy for that matter?
What this demonstrates is an inability to discuss the issue at hand.
Just pointing out examples of your hypocrisy. All in a days work. 8)
-
Just pointing out examples of your hypocrisy. All in a days work. 8)
Yawn. When you can't address the issue, divert, make a dumb comment, insult, change the subject, etc. Pretty transparent.
-
lol. Who said anything about Christianity? ::) What on earth does the death penalty and abortion have to do with this subject? Or Christiantiy for that matter?
What this demonstrates is an inability to discuss the issue at hand.
exactly...
-
Yawn. When you can't address the issue, divert, make a dumb comment, insult, change the subject, etc. Pretty transparent.
I don't have to divert, science has been proven right hundreds over and over that needle exchanges save lives and help to prevent further HIV infections therefore lowering the cost of health care.
-
I don't have to divert, science has been proven right hundreds over and over that needle exchanges save lives and help to prevent further HIV infections therefore lowering the cost of health care.
so would getting these ppl off the drugs themselves...why not put money towards that instead of assisting these ppl in breaking the law?
-
I don't have to divert, science has been proven right hundreds over and over that needle exchanges save lives and help to prevent further HIV infections therefore lowering the cost of health care.
So would paying for rehab for every drug addict and alcoholic. That's not the government's job. At least not with my tax dollars.
-
to the OP. I'd say yes. .. going to read the rest ...